I'm glad they're cutting back by two episodes. When I found out most other one-hour dramas don't do 26 episodes, I had to really question why Trek, a more complicated production by its very nature, insisted on doing so to begin with. I hope this does a couple things: first, make them focus the stories for the rest of the season and hopefully second, trim some of those more "bottle" episodes that often aren't that great.
I don't know how the budget works on a television series, but perhaps this will allow to spread some of the money around a bit to other episodes.
RE: Good.
by Steve Krutzler @ 08:38:18 on Dec 11
RE: Good.
by Darth Malak @ 12:16:50 on Dec 11
Look at this with an upbeat outlook. This only means there are 2 fewer episodes I won't "not watch."
--------
Then: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." -Paul Wolfowitz, March 2003
Now: "And the idea of adding an additional burden to the debts they already have was concluded to be the kind of thing that didn't work very well after WWI."-Donald Rumsfeld, September 2003
Over at MediaWeek, Berman says that there is no truth to it:
Quote:
"Just yesterday UPN assured me that Star Trek: Enterprise is by no means moving to Friday. Although ratings are down year-to-year, the sci-fi drama still has an audience and is not ready to head to that big spaceship in the sky."
When Gene Roddenberry died, so did Star Trek, Bergman has no idea what he is doing.
The movies have went down hill, the seires haven't did as well(even thought Enterprise is great) and it's Bergman's fault.
The wrose idea Bergman ever had was to kill Captian Kirk, Bergman should get on his knees and beg William Shatner to come back.
I also blame the Nielsen Ratings for what's happening to Enterprise, since when is Nielsen Ratings a good way to see what people are watching when less then 1% of households have them boxes, TiVo has a new box either coming out or out that works like a Nielsen box the differance is anyone that wants one can buy one and pay the monthly service fee and their veiwing habbits will be counted.
I'd say the most logical reason for a cut-down to 24 episodes this season, is that each one has been more expensive so far. They sure look very very expensive, compared to season 1-2. I'm amazed at the high visual quality and more-than-usual creative music. I have never seen anything so great, and all you people can do is say "I don't care!"
It's like learning an old almost unknown uncle died, it's sad but you don't really care...Never thought I would say that!
--------
The most important thing I didn't learn this week:
Where are the baby pigeons? Never seen one!
It's hard to believe that ENT has already had more eps than TOS. Okay, there were many weak TOS eps, like "Spock's Brain." But look at all the really memorable TOS eps, out of the 79 total. In comparison, how many great eps of ENT have there been in the same period? If ENT does get dumped this year, the reasons will be clear.
--------
"When I was your age, I didn't watch television! I LIVED! So... move out of your parent's basements!"
-- William Shatner on SNL, 1986
Many of us on the boards have commented that we are sick of those "filler" episodes that waste time. Perhaps reducing the number of episodes is a way to improve the overall quality of the show.
Is this perhaps the first step towards a change from "quantity" of Trek to "quality?"
Finishing out 100 episodes then shutting ENT down sounds like a reasonable hypothesis. As much as I love Star Trek, the franchise is in desperate need of a rest. Just think, they have what, more than 700 episodes of TNG, DS9 and VOY in the can. If they syndicate it right, then come back with fresh ideas in a few years, they could really kick-start the ST universe all over.
If this happens, I wouldn't fret like fans of TOS did in the early 1970s. There is plenty of Trek material out there to enjoy. But B&B, as much as they have done for the franchise (and let's be honest folks, taken as a whole, they've done a very good job), fresh ideas are needed. And the best way to do that is to let it sit.
The question becomes, do the suits at Paramount have that kind of patience?
Live long and prosper.
As i recall B&B's huge contracts both lasts till the end of the 2004-2005 season so to me it all makes perfect sense to Paramount. They get the 100 eps they need to make a good deal on sindcation and they can get rid of both B&B without having to make a deal for firering them.
The thing is, What next. Another series is unlikely in the near future. Another movie is also not an option since there's no cast or audience for it.
So they could continue producing Enterprise with new people in charge or do TV movies. or just kill Star Trek off for a long long time. Sorry to say I see the latest the more likely to happend.
If the 24 episode part is true, then this is probably not good news unless the producers themselves asked for fewer episodes. But that's unlikely. More likely it's UPN trying to save some money, maybe doing extra reruns is more profitable for them. Similarly Sci-Fi channel reportedly has cut the number of SG-1 episodes for next season from 22 to 20 (they are also doing 20 episodes of an SG-1 spin-off).
Interesting coincidence, TOS 3rd season was cut to 24 episodes (from 26) before it was cancelled.
--------
"We owe a lot to Thomas Edison. If it wasn't for him, we'd be watching television by candlelight." -Milton Berle
Who did TrekWeb talk to at Paramount? I read this off of another email list and it, again not being official since this is all rumor, shot down the rumor. According to the information gathered UPN would be making the decision on the number of episodes, not Paramount.
Problem with the internet, its too easy to get rumors flowing and too many people take them as fact.
Carl
(start)
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:01:43 EST
From: mjr91@aol.com
Subject: Re the episode reduction rumor: here's some truth
I just talked to Eric over at the ENT production office, who told me that he hadn't seen any memo cutting back on the number of episodes this season. He acknowledged that he is a low-level peon who would probably hear last if such were the case, but thought that he'd probably know before fan websites did if
it were true.
Eric suggested that maybe UPN was looking at only airing 24 episodes and that maybe the network might have been the origin of such a problem. However,
when I called the UPN programming department number that Eric had at his desk, the UPN programming folks told me that they have it scheduled for a full 26
episodes for the year; they haven't got any idea, at least at that woman's level in programming, of cutting back on any episodes.
Anyone who posts over at Trek BBS where this is being discussed, or over on TrekWeb, if it's being discussed there, may want to let people there know.
MJ
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:34:56 -0000
From: "MJ Rogers"
Subject: Re: Re the episode reduction rumor: here's some truth
And in the area of more good news -- I called Eric back just now to let him know that the UPN call had
been positive. When I called the studio, he wasn't at his desk so I talked to someone else for a minute -- who confirmed that ho one else there had heard any news on episode reduction either (and that since
the contract is for 26 episodes, it would be UPN's call, not Paramount's, to produce fewer episodes than that).
She also thought the best thing people could do (and I just emailed Dark Horizons about it) is - as I suggested in my last post - let people who hear this rumor know that we've spoken to Paramount and it's not true, and put out a few fires on the web saying so. (Again, anyone over at Trek BBS to tell them?)
The thing is this: Dark Horizons admitted it was only a rumor. (Although they could have checked it out before running it, as I did today when I had time to sit and make the calls. Odd how no one else ever calls UPN or Paramount to ask them anything, isn't it?) The website's own fear was that people would decide this was fact -- which some people are almost certainly doing.
My own concerns with rumors of this sort is that WE may hear them and believe them -- which was why I posted the original with caveats and then checked up on it -- or hear distorted versions of them and think
that we're going after hot info when we aren't. I'm concerned that they become demoralizing to people on the BBSes. I'm concerned that individuals not write letters to UPN, Les Moonves, etc wasting our
time and credibility whining about things that aren't true.
I'm also always concerned -- and it's one of the reasons I follow up, when no one else does -- that some of these rumors MAY contain a germ of truth to them, and I like to determine which are which. As I
said, the MediaWeek story is more credible than the Dark Horizons one was. That's one that's worthy of keeping our eyes on.
MJ
--------
-=/\=-
Carl Stark
http://beam.to/readyroom
Why Fridays?! Isn't Fridays supposed to equal death to most shows? Firefly and John Doe were on Fridays and even though they were great shows, they still got cancelled! Plus, I already got the primetime slots filled with Joan of Arcadia at 8, Mythbusters at 9, and The Handler at 10. I wanted Enterprise to move to a day that I don't already have a show I also want to see. It's already a pain to record both Smallville and Enterprise at the same time! If that is true, then goodbye Enterprise.
--------
TREKMAN: The MAN Who Knows His TREK
Sit down, shut up, and just watch the show!
Well all the signs were there that either Enterprise would make or break itself with S3. Though qaulity-wise the show has improved but unfortunately only in short spades. Plus the biggest factor that didnt work in enterprise favour and most probably will leads to its cancellation are the ratings. They haven't imporved much over S2. Everyone expected S3 to be a ratings spike of a season but alas B&B have killed star trek for good(love my signature) and fan have been driven away in droves for good. I highly doubt we are going to get another series or a thearatical movie for the next decade or so.
Sad day for all trekkies but we could see the storm coming from a long-time ago........:(
--------
"The mighty Star Trek would fall before us"-B&B
As long as Enterprise doesn't interfere with JAG I'll be happy. There is crap on TV on Fridays and Enterprise would be great. It would be even better if it was Saturday at 8, but UPN won't do that. Still, if B&B gave a Damn about ratings, ENT would be on a network that has more than 65% penetration, like their sister network CBS.
TEG
Give it a REST, Enterprise will last at least 7 seasons!!!!!
--------
F=qv x B + qE
Mac OS X, the most installed UN*X Distribution
LCARS = Mike Okuda + Macintosh
ENT's Theme Rules
This is whart ultimately did in TOS. Most of the prized 18-34 (or whatever the number is) is not home watching telly on Friday night.
Not a good show of faith in ENT on UPN's part. I wonder if they could finish up the series in syndication? This worked for TNG and DS9.
--------
"I don't believe in the 'no-win scenario' " - J.T. Kirk
I really hate this world...
I say let it die, fire B&B, get together a new team of people that are talented and huge fans then spend a whole year in development, get it right.
I'm tired of ENT, its just limping along, each show feels like it was written over a conference call. The show is not working, so kill it before it kills the franchise. The effects are great, everything else stinks.
When it dies I'll be excited for trek again, excited for something new by new people.
...if they not only move "Enterprise" to Friday nights, but at 10pm, to boot! History will magically repeat itself, and we'll never see from ENT and Berman & Braga again! Only this time, there won't be any ENTERPRISE movie in 2014.
Ent is mediocre but it has had it's moments. If it goes away I won't cry..
--------
We got a heartbeat Jim!.. Lock and Load! ST6 - Bones
| 
